valleyguy
Member
Sweet, if I hadn't just bought one, I'd be all over that.
Good luck.
Good luck.
'66 D40
- Thread starter donnylang
- Start date
drc
Senior Member
someone please add up all the models that have been talked about in this thread! holy cow
my brain hurts
my brain hurts
donnylang
Member
Aside from the non-Guild talk, we’re mostly discussing the differences between the classic Guild dreadnoughts. Lemme break down the hierarchy, circa Jan 1973 (about the end of what I consider the “classic” era):
1. D55 (rosewood w/ fancy features and ebony fretboard): $625 ($3850 today)
2. D50 (rosewood, less fancy w/ ebony fretboard): $525 ($3235 today)
3. D44-M (solid maple version of D50): $490 ($3020 today)
4. D44 (Pearwood version of D50): $465 ($2865 today)
5. D40 (mahogany w/ rosewood fretboard): $400 ($2465)
6. G37 (arched maple version of D40): $400 ($2465)
7. D35 (less fancy version of D40- I personally think they were voiced differently from the D40, they tend to be lighter in weight but also tend to clearly have “lower end” features): $345 in natural ($2125 today), $330 in sunburst ($2035 today)
8. D25 (all mahogany, flatback/solid up to this point): $290 in cherry ($1785 today), $280 in mahogany ($1725 today).
donnylang
Member
One interesting thing to note is it seems like Guild was possibly responding to demand for a maple dreadnought in the early ‘70s.
Looks like the D44-M first appeared around April 1972 in the price lists. Meanwhile, they were making some G37s around this time as well (the one on the way to me has a Nov 1971 stamp, and a serial that should place it somewhere around the earlier part of 1972, in terms of sequence). Yet there was no G37 in the price list until Jan 1973.
I wonder if they were feeling out the market in comparing a higher priced flatback maple vs a mid-lower priced arched back. If this were the case, then the results would seem to indicate they decided there was a market for both. And soon after, the Pearwood D44 was discontinued.
Looks like the D44-M first appeared around April 1972 in the price lists. Meanwhile, they were making some G37s around this time as well (the one on the way to me has a Nov 1971 stamp, and a serial that should place it somewhere around the earlier part of 1972, in terms of sequence). Yet there was no G37 in the price list until Jan 1973.
I wonder if they were feeling out the market in comparing a higher priced flatback maple vs a mid-lower priced arched back. If this were the case, then the results would seem to indicate they decided there was a market for both. And soon after, the Pearwood D44 was discontinued.
adorshki
Reverential Member
Maple's always been the "middle" grade in the Guild flattop line starting with the F40 (the originals had almost all the same bling as an F50 but were also just a tad smaller, for example) but that also set the tradition for maple being a step up from 'hog.
Both woods have fans for different reasons, and I think maple in particular is able to cut most cleanly through many mixes. There's a reason so many jazz archtops (Guild's original mission) are maple bodied, for example.
And the flatback vs archback difference is subtle but real, too.
I might be romanticizing but I like to think it was part of Guild's "mission" in '72 to try to offer as many different options as possible. They were small enough to be flexible about smaller production numbers. "Let a thousand flowers bloom".
But yeah, after all, it was a business. So they probably didn't pursue potential models with small sales predictions.
And along the lines of you mentioned there might have been a little "keep up with the competition"marketing motive, or even try to offer that small advantage of a unique build like a maple archback dread, did anybody else make one at the time? (I'm woefully ignorant of other brands' histories and models).
donnylang
Member
I’m not too familiar with other brands lineups either, but I can’t recall seeing many (any?) archback acoustics at all in other brands.Maple's always been the "middle" grade in the Guild flattop line starting with the F40 (the originals had almost all the same bling as an F50 but were also just a tad smaller, for example) but that also set the tradition for maple being a step up from 'hog.
Both woods have fans for different reasons, and I think maple in particular is able to cut most cleanly through many mixes. There's a reason so many jazz archtops (Guild's original mission) are maple bodied, for example.
And the flatback vs archback difference is subtle but real, too.
I might be romanticizing but I like to think it was part of Guild's "mission" in '72 to try to offer as many different options as possible. They were small enough to be flexible about smaller production numbers. "Let a thousand flowers bloom".
But yeah, after all, it was a business. So they probably didn't pursue potential models with small sales predictions.
And along the lines of you mentioned there might have been a little "keep up with the competition"marketing motive, or even try to offer that small advantage of a unique build like a maple archback dread, did anybody else make one at the time? (I'm woefully ignorant of other brands' histories and models).
I like the “let 1000 flowers bloom” concept (probably also with a “let us make $1000 too” ha). I think this is where we should note ‘72 was the last year Al Dronge was around.
I personally have not warmed up to a maple guitar yet. I found this particular very early G37 appealing. The unique thing in the Guild lineup is the maple w rosewood board- is there another? I personally find the rosewood vs ebony board difference to be very noticeable. Ebony sounds more “glassy” or percussive, and rosewood warm like the sound digs in more. If that makes sense.
donnylang
Member
adorshki
Reverential Member
Yeah it seemed to be their "secret weapon"
Didn't really realize my own D25 was a laminated archback for a couple of days, figured out it was laminated one night when I noticed an identical grain pattern was reversed 180 deg from the outside to the inside. One of the Westerly guys told me it once it would actually have been considered a cosmetic blem, they tried to make sure the grain matched inside and outside. (Halloween neckblock date, winds up with a jinxed back, makes sense to me
)Anyway it kind of dawned on me that archbacks seemed to be a Guild trademark, didn't even realize they built flatbacks for a couple of years.
I just thought the whole design concept was elegant and way cool on so many levels. I considered it the guitar equivalent of my beloved RX-7's rotary engines. And had both at once for few years, there, too.
It took me a few years bonding with my own D40 to finally hear the difference between an archback and a flatback in a relatively apples-to-apples comparison.
Example, out of 2 archbacks and a flatback, the D40 actually records the best, even on cell phone.
I started looking for a way to tame the maple zing (F65ce is 16" archback maple shallow F body) myself after a few years, wound up with silk'n'steel 11's tuned down a whole step.
Still using it now, but considering bringing it back up to standard, along with the D25, as the D40 also sees to yield the best intonation when tuned down a whole step, and I like to have one tuned that way..
Just in case you like to experiment. Don't recall if we've covered that before.
Yeah the board itself influences timbre, that issue of most maple bodies getting ebony never hit me before. Yep, the F65ce's ebony. At the time I just figured it was another element of building a multi-generation instrument neck with most durable fretboard wood, along with the 3-pc neck. Resists twisting.
I used to think of the G37 as a maple D25 but I think you're right about it being more an arched maple D40, when you look at things like the neck construction. Also D25 was still flatbacked in '71-'72...
Be interesting to check the top bracing on it when it comes in, just wondering if they might be shaved, a cut above "standard"?
donnylang
Member
I actually played around with Richie Havens style tuning on the ‘68 D40 I had- it did sound way cool, but I couldn’t work myself into it. I tend to be a “set and forget” type, so I use standard because I can just kind of not think about it at all.Yeah it seemed to be their "secret weapon"
One of the Westerly guys told me it once it would actually have been considered a cosmetic blem, they tried to make sure the grain matched inside and outside. (Halloween neckblock date, winds up with a jinxed back, makes sense to me
Anyway it kind of dawned on me that archbacks seemed to be a Guild trademark, didn't even realize they built flatbacks for a couple of years.
I just thought the whole design concept was elegant and way cool on so many levels. I considered it the guitar equivalent of my beloved RX-7's rotary engines. And had both at once for few years, there, too.
It took me a few years bonding with my own D40 to finally hear the difference between an archback and a flatback in a relatively apples-to-apples comparison.
Example, out of 2 archbacks and a flatback, the D40 actually records the best, even on cell phone.
I started looking for a way to tame the maple zing (F65ce is 16" archback maple shallow F body) myself after a few years, wound up with silk'n'steel 11's tuned down a whole step.
Still using it now, but considering bringing it back up to standard, along with the D25, as the D40 also sees to yield the best intonation when tuned down a whole step, and I like to have one tuned that way..
Just in case you like to experiment. Don't recall if we've covered that before.
Yeah the board itself influences timbre, that issue of most maple bodies getting ebony never hit me before. Yep, the F65ce's ebony. At the time I just figured it was another element of building a multi-generation instrument neck with most durable fretboard wood, along with the 3-pc neck. Resists twisting.
I used to think of the G37 as a maple D25 but I think you're right about it being more an arched maple D40, when you look at things like the neck construction. Also D25 was still flatbacked in '71-'72...
Be interesting to check the top bracing on it when it comes in, just wondering if they might be shaved, a cut above "standard"?
I may experiment more with the G37 if I like it, since the D35 is not going anywhere- I may end up w two guitars. Neither were bank breakers, so it could work out.
To me the clues that the G37 is more akin to D40 (probably between D35 and D40) are 4 elements:
1- the number 37 itself is between 35 and 40. Could have called it a G25 if it were just a D25? And like you say- D25s were not yet arched, so this makes the G37 the first arched dreadnought Guild?
2- The binding is white like a D40, whereas it’s black on the D25.
3- The price is the same as the D40. I think the more expensive maple was balanced with the arched construction possibly.
I don’t think the silk screened logo would be a factor when it was designed, because D40s had that at the time as well. As far as I can tell, the earliest G37s had similar (the same?) tuners as the D40 also (not the strip tuners of the D35 and D25).
My ‘68 D35 records the best of any Guild I’ve owned, by far. Didn’t require any EQ (unlike most of the others). The other one that recorded straight and easy was the ‘71 F50, though I was not really comfortable playing that guitar for some reason. The ‘68 D40 had too much BOOM and THUMP that was very cool when playing, but required a lot of EQ to tame, and the ‘67 D44 had some low-mid oddness that didn’t come through very well on a mike. The mike was also a factor- a couple tracks recorded with a simple old Shure 565 came through fine on the D44 however (vs the fancy AKG mike that picked up more nuance and sounded fuller).
Last edited:
Westerly Wood
Venerated Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 13,426
- Reaction score
- 6,624
- Guild Total
- 2
I know Martin and Gibson struggled in early 70s, and maybe that whole decade. Their quality I mean was not great. While the 70s was like one of Guilds best decades.
ClaytonS15
Member
It’s not a dreadnought, but the GF-30 is a maple bodied arched back Guild. I love mine!
Br1ck
Senior Member
The long neck gives a Texan more snap than a J 45. It's very noticeable playing them back to back. Are the smaller Guilds short scale, perhaps the M 20?
donnylang
Member
Funny you should ask …
The G37 arrived with gnarly shipping damage- a big ole chunk cracked on the top. As it was a private deal with the seller (no Reverb, eBay, etc), and he packed it … shall we say not as I would have … I cut a deal for 1/2 refund.
I still have it but basically decided to cut my losses and try to sell for cheap to someone else to repair. It needs a setup and I’m scared to tune it to pitch too long … but I actually kinda like it from the little I’ve played. It would be a good guitar for someone who maybe is experimenting with repairs because the thing has so many funky repairs, it’s a bit of a sad case.
pics here: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/msg/d/oakland-vintage-1972-guild-g37-acoustic/7385141899.html
donnylang
Member
From the little I’ve played it, it’s similar in feel to the ‘72 D25 I had. It did make me realize it’s the ebony fretboard I don’t care for more than the maple body on other maple guitars I’ve played. The G37 sounds nice and warm with the rosewood fretboard but with a clarity I like from the maple.
donnylang
Member
I don't think so, as I was interested in this one since it was such an early model. '72 G37s seem pretty rare.
Br1ck
Senior Member
Has the bridge been shaved? Looks like it may be reset time too.
hansmoust
Enlightened Member
donnylang
Member
Are you guys referring to the G37? The bridge is pretty fat/tall, didn't realize it isn't original but given this guitar's overall condition, I don't think a neck reset would be a great idea, so probably could shave it. Saddle has enough room to go down a bit first though. It plays pretty good currently, but I would lower the saddle all the way if I were to keep it. I think it needs a little fret work too ... I haven't really been comfortable tuning it up for too long because of the crack. Probably get it to someone who wants a project to experiment on. It's a pretty good guitar, the neck is great.
I'm not inclined to "toss good money after bad" ... I got pretty burned on the deal and am cutting my losses at this point.